Virapornsawun v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

The matter under consideration involved Virapornsawun, the applicant, and the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, the first respondent, as well as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the second respondent. The applicant sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss his application for review of the Minister’s decision not to revoke the cancellation of his visa. The Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that it was brought outside the time prescribed by statute. The applicant contended that the Tribunal should have granted an extension of time due to the difficulties caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal should have granted an extension of time for the applicant’s appeal due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court considered whether the statutory time limit for lodging an application for review was mandatory and absolute, and whether there were any exceptional circumstances that would justify an extension of time. The court also considered whether the applicant had made a sufficient case for an extension of time, and whether the Tribunal had acted lawfully in dismissing the applicant’s application for review.

The court held that the statutory time limit for lodging an application for review was mandatory and absolute, and that there were no exceptional circumstances that would justify an extension of time. The court found that the applicant had not made a sufficient case for an extension of time, and that the Tribunal had not acted unlawfully in dismissing the applicant’s application for review. The court noted that the applicant had not provided any evidence to support his claim that the COVID-19 pandemic had caused difficulties in lodging his application for review. The court also noted that the Tribunal had considered the applicant’s circumstances and had found that there were no grounds for an extension of time. The court held that the Tribunal’s decision was lawful and that the applicant’s application for judicial review should be dismissed.
The court ordered that the originating application filed on 28 September 2020 be dismissed, and that the applicant pay the first respondent’s costs as agreed or taxed. The court held that the applicant’s application for judicial review was without merit, and that the costs should be awarded to the first respondent. The court noted that the applicant had not succeeded in establishing any ground for review, and that the costs should be awarded to the first respondent as a penalty for bringing a frivolous or vexatious proceeding. The court held that the costs should be assessed on the basis of the costs agreed between the parties, or if the parties were unable to agree, on the basis of the costs taxed by the court.